Before you call on the Taoiseach to announce the Order of Business, I should like to seek your guidance in respect of a parliamentary question of a particular nature. Last week I submitted a question: "To ask the Taoiseach whether the Government had yet received a reply on the findings of the European Commission on Human Rights in the case of Ireland against the United Kingdom." You informed me, Sir, by letter this morning that the question was out of order because it related to a matter which was sub judice. The question, as it appears on its face, makes no reference to the merits of the case and therefore can have no bearing whatever on the decision, judgment or recommendation to be made in the case. It was simply a question seeking knowledge as to whether or not the report of that Committee had been received by the Government. The answer is relevant in another context, in the context of the Bill that is coming before the Dáil on its Committee Stage immediately after Question Time today. I am asking why in these circumstances, in so far as the answer could not possibly affect the subject matter of the case in question, you ruled it out of order?
Business of Dáil.
My information is that the matter is sub judice and any matter relating to such proceedings cannot be raised until such time as the Commission is no longer seized of the case.
I could accept that ruling if the question in any way could have prejudiced the case, if it in any way referred to the merits of the case or the subject matter of the case; but where only a simple answer was sought, as to whether or not the report had been received by the Government, is there no distinction made between that and a question which might affect the substance or the merits of the case?
I have outlined my reasons to the Deputy and I have nothing further to add.
A Deputy
You outlined nothing.
It is related to a matter which is sub judice.
How in the name of heaven is a case which is known to be concluded, a case in respect of which a report is said to be in the possession of the Government, sub judice?
The Chair is acting in accordance with precedent.
The Chair seems to be — I will not use the word "hiding"— taking advantage of a precedent which in no way relates to the question I put down on the Order Paper.
The Chair is acting in accordance with the best traditions of the House.
While one of my colleagues was prefacing a question a while ago, I passed a comment that I thought he was not getting co-operation in answer to his question. I do not think I am getting the co-operation necessary when the Opposition are seeking genuine information from the Government.
The Deputy is not getting it from his own party.
The Chair is acting in accordance with precedent.
If the matter is sub judice, why are the papers allowed to comment on it and write about it?
The Chair has no control over that matter.
The Chair has no control over the position here.